Gerald Kyalo. (geraldbway).
A high-profile case has been filed at the Milimani High Court seeking to hold ten senior officials from the Public Service Commission (PSC) in contempt for allegedly disobeying court directives related to the removal process of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The petition, filed by Jane Onyango through lawyer Festus Onyango, alleges that the PSC officials deliberately proceeded with regulatory steps despite a court order halting such actions. According to the court papers, the officials continued with a process aimed at formulating, validating, and adopting the Draft Public Service Commission (Removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Regulations, 2026, contrary to a conservatory order issued by Justice Joe M. Omido on March 12, 2026.
Justice Omido’s orders had been issued after the court certified the matter as urgent and granted interim orders halting any further steps in the process. This included stopping stakeholder engagement, validation forums, and any other activities that could advance the adoption of the draft regulations. The orders were clear and public, aimed at protecting the integrity of the judicial process while the matter was under review.
Despite these directives, the petitioner claims the PSC went ahead and conducted an online validation forum on March 23, 2026. The forum, the petitioner argues, was a key component of the regulatory process and represented a direct violation of the court’s orders. “The actions amount to deliberate and willful disobedience of a lawful court order,” the petition states, asserting that such conduct undermines both the authority and dignity of the court.
Those named in the application include prominent commissioners Mary W. Kimonye, Joan A. Machayo, Dr. Irene C. Asienga, Francis Meja, Molu Boya, Mwanamaka Amani Mabruki, Harun Maalim Hassan, Dr. Francis Otieno Owino, Jacqueline Manani, as well as the Commission’s Chief Executive Officer, Paul Famba.
The petitioner has requested that the court summon the officials in person to explain why they should not be cited and punished for contempt. The application further seeks to nullify and set aside any resolutions, reports, or outcomes that arose from the March 23 validation forum, arguing that they are void and carry no legal effect.
In addition to these demands, the petitioner is requesting that the officials be committed to civil jail for up to six months if found guilty of contempt. They are also being asked to bear the costs of the case personally. The legal team emphasizes that failure by the court to intervene would weaken the authority of judicial orders and risk rendering the matter itself meaningless.
The petitioner has stated that the PSC officials were fully aware, or ought to have been aware, of the existing court orders. The documents, including the petition and supporting affidavit, were reportedly served on the Commission both physically and via email on March 16, 2026. A subsequent affidavit of service was filed to confirm that the PSC had received the documents in compliance with legal requirements.
“The conduct of the PSC officials demonstrates a clear disregard for the rule of law and the authority of the judiciary,” the petition reads. It further asserts that the forum conducted on March 23 involved senior PSC officials acting under the authority of the Commission, making the violation deliberate rather than accidental.
Legal analysts observing the case say it raises important questions about the balance of power between independent constitutional commissions and the judiciary. If the court finds the officials guilty of contempt, it would send a strong message reinforcing the supremacy of court orders and the need for compliance by public officers.
The case has also attracted public attention given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the sensitivity surrounding the role of the DPP. The Director of Public Prosecutions plays a critical role in Kenya’s justice system, including the prosecution of high-level corruption and criminal cases, making any attempt to alter or influence the position highly scrutinized.
The matter is scheduled to be mentioned in Milimani High Court on April 9, 2026, for further directions. Observers anticipate that the hearing could set a precedent regarding how public institutions respond to court orders, particularly in matters where constitutional and administrative powers intersect.
In addition to the contempt proceedings, the case could have wider implications for governance in Kenya, particularly concerning how commissions execute their regulatory functions while respecting judicial oversight. Legal commentators suggest that adherence to court orders is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring that no institution operates above the law.
The PSC has not issued a public statement responding to the petition, and it remains unclear how the Commission intends to address the allegations. Meanwhile, the petitioner’s legal team has indicated that they are prepared to pursue the matter vigorously to uphold the authority of the courts and protect the integrity of the regulatory process.
The April 9 mention will be closely watched by legal practitioners, government officials, and civil society actors, as it may clarify the limits of authority for independent commissions when faced with direct judicial directives.
The petition, filed by Jane Onyango through lawyer Festus Onyango, alleges that the PSC officials deliberately proceeded with regulatory steps despite a court order halting such actions. According to the court papers, the officials continued with a process aimed at formulating, validating, and adopting the Draft Public Service Commission (Removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Regulations, 2026, contrary to a conservatory order issued by Justice Joe M. Omido on March 12, 2026.
Justice Omido’s orders had been issued after the court certified the matter as urgent and granted interim orders halting any further steps in the process. This included stopping stakeholder engagement, validation forums, and any other activities that could advance the adoption of the draft regulations. The orders were clear and public, aimed at protecting the integrity of the judicial process while the matter was under review.
Despite these directives, the petitioner claims the PSC went ahead and conducted an online validation forum on March 23, 2026. The forum, the petitioner argues, was a key component of the regulatory process and represented a direct violation of the court’s orders. “The actions amount to deliberate and willful disobedience of a lawful court order,” the petition states, asserting that such conduct undermines both the authority and dignity of the court.
Those named in the application include prominent commissioners Mary W. Kimonye, Joan A. Machayo, Dr. Irene C. Asienga, Francis Meja, Molu Boya, Mwanamaka Amani Mabruki, Harun Maalim Hassan, Dr. Francis Otieno Owino, Jacqueline Manani, as well as the Commission’s Chief Executive Officer, Paul Famba.
The petitioner has requested that the court summon the officials in person to explain why they should not be cited and punished for contempt. The application further seeks to nullify and set aside any resolutions, reports, or outcomes that arose from the March 23 validation forum, arguing that they are void and carry no legal effect.
In addition to these demands, the petitioner is requesting that the officials be committed to civil jail for up to six months if found guilty of contempt. They are also being asked to bear the costs of the case personally. The legal team emphasizes that failure by the court to intervene would weaken the authority of judicial orders and risk rendering the matter itself meaningless.
The petitioner has stated that the PSC officials were fully aware, or ought to have been aware, of the existing court orders. The documents, including the petition and supporting affidavit, were reportedly served on the Commission both physically and via email on March 16, 2026. A subsequent affidavit of service was filed to confirm that the PSC had received the documents in compliance with legal requirements.
“The conduct of the PSC officials demonstrates a clear disregard for the rule of law and the authority of the judiciary,” the petition reads. It further asserts that the forum conducted on March 23 involved senior PSC officials acting under the authority of the Commission, making the violation deliberate rather than accidental.
Legal analysts observing the case say it raises important questions about the balance of power between independent constitutional commissions and the judiciary. If the court finds the officials guilty of contempt, it would send a strong message reinforcing the supremacy of court orders and the need for compliance by public officers.
The case has also attracted public attention given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the sensitivity surrounding the role of the DPP. The Director of Public Prosecutions plays a critical role in Kenya’s justice system, including the prosecution of high-level corruption and criminal cases, making any attempt to alter or influence the position highly scrutinized.
The matter is scheduled to be mentioned in Milimani High Court on April 9, 2026, for further directions. Observers anticipate that the hearing could set a precedent regarding how public institutions respond to court orders, particularly in matters where constitutional and administrative powers intersect.
In addition to the contempt proceedings, the case could have wider implications for governance in Kenya, particularly concerning how commissions execute their regulatory functions while respecting judicial oversight. Legal commentators suggest that adherence to court orders is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring that no institution operates above the law.
The PSC has not issued a public statement responding to the petition, and it remains unclear how the Commission intends to address the allegations. Meanwhile, the petitioner’s legal team has indicated that they are prepared to pursue the matter vigorously to uphold the authority of the courts and protect the integrity of the regulatory process.
The April 9 mention will be closely watched by legal practitioners, government officials, and civil society actors, as it may clarify the limits of authority for independent commissions when faced with direct judicial directives.
